12So in everything, do to others what you would
have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
I don't see where the changing and evolving is taking
place?
Pete said : “Eye
for an eye in the OT is a means of bringing official "legal"
restitution. It is not meant for making personal decisions. I likely
agree with Murray here, in our previous exchange. You may not be
picking a very good example to make your point. ”
Bernie replied: "There’s
not really that big of a difference. Instead of a person making a
judgment, it is a court (which is hopefully more fair and unbiased).
So I think it is still interesting to see exactly what “eye for eye”
meant (OT law example), how it was applied, and how it
compares/contrasts with the NT."
On the personal level which you argued, I would say that
Lev. 19:18 strictly prohibits revenge. I do
believe it would be wrong (sin) for the Jewish boy to have acted
on his own in spirit a of vindictiveness in your example. "Eye
for eye", in my view, is more about limiting punishment/restitution by
a governing body on the behalf of someone who was wronged to a
"punishment/recompense that fits the crime".
Or as Glenn highlighted in a reference:
"According to the laws in chaps. 17–26, two qualities are the girding
pillars of a holy life, i.e., justice and love. Justice means equity.
This is stated fundamentally in the principle of lex talionis, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth, a life for a life (24:20). This principle does not imply that
punishment was carried out by inflicting bodily injury in kind, but
that punishment for harm to a
person is to be commensurate with the harm done, not greater, as
revenge dictates, nor less, as indulgence desires. This
principle was a great advancement
in law codes, for it raised personal injury from a civil tort to
criminal law, increasing the social worth of a citizen.
Throughout these laws the worth of each person is affirmed. [WBC, Leviticus, Intro]
I think some of the confusion here is that
you are looking at laws that were established for a culture so
different from our own and assuming that they have the same
value/societal implications as ours. Would we ever stone a woman who
lied and posed to be a virgin in today's times? Does someone's
virginity have the same implications today as it did in the ANE?
I think the main contrast I see in the NT
is that Jesus brings the same unchanging morals to a focus in our inner
world rather than constraints on the outer world.
Ryan